Efficiency Analysis of İzmir Metro in Its Current State By Ömer SELVİ A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School in Partial Fulfillment to the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF CITY PLANNING Department: City and Regional Planning Major: City Planning İzmir Institute of Technology İzmir, Turkey September, 2002 We approve the thesis of Ömer SELVİ Date of Signature …………………………………… 19.09.2002 Assoc. Prof. Dr. Güneş GÜR Supervisor Department of City and Regional Planning …………………………………… 19.09.2002 Assist. Prof. Dr. Yavuz DUVARCI Department of City and Regional Planning …………………………………… 19.09.2002 Assoc. Prof. Dr. Özen EYÜCE Department of Architecture …………………………………… 19.09.2002 Prof. Dr. Akõn SÜEL Head of Department ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would express firstly great thanks to my supervisor Assoc. Prof. Dr. Güneş GÜR for having accepted me to prepare this master thesis. I would also thank to Assist. Prof. Dr. Yavuz DUVARCI for his theoretical support during the process of this study. I would express heartfelt thanks to my dearest Evrim GÜÇER who made a serious contribution and support while preparing the thesis. I am also in debt to Ali Kemal ÇINAR for computer support. I am deeply grateful to; İBŞB staff; Ilgaz CANDEMİR, Emre ORAL, Esin TÜRSEN and Orhan KESLER for their help to enable data access. Ömür SAYGIN for GIS database support. Rose GANDEE, information specialist of APTA, for sending books. Özgür İMRE for his help throughout printing process. Finally, I would like to thank to my fellow Mehmet BAŞOĞLU for his help in land survey. i ABSTRACT This thesis analyzes the efficiency of the current state of İzmir Metro System by using the Method of Comparative Benchmarking. In the theoretical framework, the need and emerge of each transit mode is discussed, and the importance of mass transit concept is pointed out. The development of urban transit and the need for metro systems are examined. The characteristics of the prevailing mass transit systems modes are described and compared. Efficiency concept, as the quality of well and effective service, without wasting time, money, or energy, is analyzed. Different approaches to efficiency are described. In the view of efficiency; right mode choice, right travel demand estimation, right choice of routes and stations are discussed and efficiency criteria for public transport are determined. The Method of Comparative Benchmarking Analysis is examined for the measurement of efficiency. Applications and the uses of this method in public transportation and in metro systems are evaluated. Specifically, performance measurement stages of that performance increaser method are employed to measure the performance of İzmir Metro. İzmir Metro is analyzed and then compared with similar systems worldwide. Key Words: İzmir Metro, Efficiency, Urban Mass Transit, Comparative Benchmarking Analysis ii ÖZ Bu tez, İzmir Metro Sisteminin mevcut durumunun verimliliğini, Karşõlaştõrmalõ Standart Belirleme Yöntemini ile analiz etmektedir. Teorik çerçeve içerisinde toplu ulaşõm türlerinin gereği ve ortaya çõkõşõ tartõşõlmõş ve toplu ulaşõmõn önemine değinilmiştir. Toplu ulaşõm türlerinin gelişimi ve günümüzde, dünya çapõnda yaygõn olarak kullanõlan toplu ulaşõm türleri incelenmiştir. Türlerin maliyet ve kapasite karşõlaştõrlmasõ yapõlmõştõr. En etkin ve kaliteli hizmetin; zaman, para ve enerji kaybetmeden sunulmasõ olarak tanõmlanan verimlilik kavramõ analiz edilmiştir. Farklõ verimlilik yaklaşõmlarõ açõklanmõştõr. Çerçeve olarak da ulaşõm karar ve eylemlerine, doğru yolculuk tahmini sonucunda, yerinde mod seçimi ve güzergah tayini gibi kriterler tartõşõlarak toplu ulaşõm için verimlilik kriterleri belirlenmiştir. Verimlilik ölçümü için Karşõlaştõrmalõ Standart Belirleme Yöntemi incelenmiş, bu yöntemin uygulamalarõ ve toplu ulaşõm alanõndaki ve metrolardaki kullanõmõ yorumlanmõştõr. Performans artõrõcõ olan bu yöntemin, performans ölçüm aşamasõ özel olarak İzmir metrosuna uygulanmõştõr. İzmir Metro analiz edilmiş ve dünyadaki benzerleri ile karşõlaştõrõlmõştõr. Anahtar Sözcükler: İzmir Metro, Verimlilik, Kentsel Toplu Ulaşõm, Karşõlaştõrmalõ Standart Belirleme Analizi. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ...………………………………………………….................. vi LIST OF TABLES ...…………………………………………………................... viii Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ...…………………………………………….......... 1 Chapter 2. DEVELOPMENT OF URBAN TRANSPORT ...……………….......... 4 2.1. First Movers of the Urban Life ...………………………………...................... 4 2.2. Urban Transport in the 19th Century ...…………………………...................... 5 2.2.1. Subway and Elevated Systems ...…………………………............................ 7 2.2.2. Automobile and Bus ………………………………………………………... 10 2.3. Prevailing Mass Transit Modes ………………………………….................... 11 2.3.1. Suburban Railroad ...……………………………………….......................... 12 2.3.2. Heavy Rail ..….…………………………………………….......................... 13 2.3.3. Light Rail ..…….……………………………………………........................ 14 2.3.4. Bus ..………………………………………………………........................... 16 2.3.4.1. Bus Travel Ways ...………………………………..................................... 18 2.3.4.2. Bus Stops and Stations ...……………………………................................ 20 2.3.4.3. Express Bus ...………………………………………................................. 20 2.3.4.4. Bus Semirapid Transit ...……………………………................................. 21 2.4. Comparison of Modes ...………………………………………….................... 23 Chapter 3. EFFICIENCY CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY ............................ 27 3.1. Efficiency in Urban Transit ............................................................................... 29 3.1.1. Estimating Travel Demand ............................................................................. 32 3.1.2. Designing an Efficient Rail Route ..............................................................… 33 3.1.3. Efficient Operating Approach ......................................................................... 33 3.2. Method of Comparative Benchmarking Analysis .............................................. 35 3.2.1. Applications of Comparative Benchmarking Analysis in Public Transport ... 36 3.2.1.1. KiPa-Project ................................................................................................. 37 3.2.1.2. SAMPO Project ........................................................................................... 38 3.2.1.3. SESAME Project ......................................................................................... 38 3.2.2. Comparative Benchmarking In Metro Systems CoMET and Nova .............. 39 3.2.2.1. CoMET - (the Community of Metros) ......................................................... 39 iv 3.2.2.2. Nova ........................................................................................................…. 40 3.2.2.3. Experience of CoMET and Nova ...……………………………………….. 40 3.3. The Use of Comparative Benchmarking Analysis ............................................. 41 3.4. The EQUIP Project .......................................................................................….. 42 Chapter 4. APPLICATION OF COMPARATIVE BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS TO THE İZMİR'S CASE ........................................................................................... 47 4.1. Current Transport Supply Systems of İzmir ....................................................... 47 4.1.1. Regional, National and International Connections .......................................... 47 4.1.2. Urban Transport systems ................................................................................. 49 4.2. Application of the Method .................................................................................. 54 4.2.1. Self-Assessment ............................................................................................... 55 4.2.2. Selection of the Relevant Systems .................................................................. 67 4.2.3. Indicators ......................................................................................................... 70 4.2.4. Comparison and Benchmarking ...................................................................... 72 Chapter 5. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 80 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 83 APPENDIX A ESTIMATED POPULATION VALUES ..…………………......... A1 APPENDIX B MAPS OF THE SELECTED METROS …...………….............….. B1 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2. 1. Typical Stagecoaches ...........................................................…………... 4 Figure 2. 2. Omnibus ...............................................................................…………... 5 Figure 2. 3. Horsecar ..............................................................................…………… 5 Figure 2. 4. Cable Car .............................................................................…………… 6 Figure 2. 5. Electric Street Car ................................................................…………… 6 Figure 2. 6. City Hall Park 1903 .............................................................……………. 8 Figure 2. 7. Historical Map of the New York First Line .........................…………… 9 Figure 2. 8. New York Metro ..................................................................…………… 14 Figure 2. 9. Hong Kong Metro ................................................................…………… 14 Figure 2. 10. LRT in San Diego ..............................................................……………